Siman 170

One should not speak in the middle of eating, and thus our sages, of blessed memory, said in Ta'anit (5b): One does not converse during a meal, lest the windpipe precede the esophagus and he come to danger, for when he produces a sound, that cover over the opening of the windpipe opens and food enters it and he is endangered (Rashi). And it appears that between one food and another it is permitted, but some say that even between one food and another it is forbidden as long as his intention is still to eat, for since it is a matter of danger, they were concerned in every case (Prisha). And even regarding words of Torah one should not speak (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), and so it implies in Ta'anit there. And one should not ask, for we learned in Avot (chapter 3): "Every table upon which words of Torah were not spoken is as if they ate from sacrifices of the dead," and many have agreed that with Birkat HaMazon alone one does not fulfill the obligation, and if so, how can this be found? For it can be said that it is found after eating, or alternatively before washing hands when one prepares himself for the meal, or alternatively after the blessing of 'Hamotzi' when he has not yet begun to eat except for the 'Hamotzi' alone, and among us we fulfill the obligation with what we say 'Al Naharot Bavel' before Birkat HaMazon, and on Shabbat and Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh we say 'Shir HaMa'alot Beshuv etc.' However, one who is able to fulfill the obligation by learning actual words of Torah, how good it is.

It is difficult: why are we not careful nowadays regarding this law, and we speak during the eating? There is one who says that specifically for them, who would eat while reclining, there was a concern of danger, for then the esophagus is above and the trachea is below and the food can enter the trachea when it opens as has been written; but we, who sit upright and the trachea is not below, there is no concern (Prisha). However, this distinction is not mentioned anywhere (ibid.), and furthermore, if so, in Taanit there, why did he not answer him: "He should have sat upright and answered," see there. And furthermore, even if the trachea is level with the esophagus, it appears also that the food can fall there. And perhaps they hold that that which they said, "one does not converse during the meal," refers to a lengthy matter like a question in words of Torah as in Taanit there, for a question in words of Torah comes to be drawn out into many words, but to answer a few words, we have no problem with it, for perhaps through this the opening of the trachea does not open. And therefore, in truth, regarding some matter we do not speak in the middle of the eating, but only between dish and dish, and we are not concerned for the opinion in section 1 that even between dish and dish one should not speak, for in truth it does not appear so, and in the middle of the eating we speak a little bit. And it is further possible to say that since many have trodden upon it, "The Lord preserves the simple" (Shabbat end of chapter 18), and so it appears primary, for according to the previous excuse there is a contradiction from the Yerushalmi chapter 6 of Berakhot, which says not to interrupt during eating even to say "asvuta" to one who sneezes, and as the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote, and from this it is explained that even one word one should not speak in the middle of eating.

It is stated in Yoma (30a): Our Rabbis taught: The halakha regarding a meal is that if a person goes out to urinate, meaning he left in the middle of the meal to urinate, he washes one of his hands and enters—that hand with which he rubbed the droplets that fell on his feet (Rashi)—and he must recite the blessing 'al netilat yadayim' (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And when he washes, he should not wash outside, but rather he washes in a manner that everyone will notice that he washed, so that they do not suspect him of not washing; for perhaps someone saw that he rubbed the droplets and they will come to suspect him (ibid., subsection 3). Therefore, if in truth he did not rub the droplets and did not touch a covered place, he does not need to wash at all. But if he relieved himself for a bowel movement—in any case he requires washing. And that which we said, that he should not wash outside because of suspicion, this is when he does not want to eat anymore but only to drink, and during the drinking they also eat a little, and in this they will suspect him that he is not careful in this and did not wash his hands. But if he needs to eat more, then he may wash even outside, for in this they will not suspect him, as everyone knows that regarding this every person is an istanis and certainly washed his hands. And in the Gemara there it is stated: "Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: And I, even for drinking they also know that I am fastidious," meaning I am an istanis, see there. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch omitted this, for we should not compare ourselves to them, and so too the Rambam in chapter 7 omitted this, see there. And if in the middle of the meal he left the table and spoke with his fellow and stayed away, meaning that he lingered with him a long time in matters outside the table—he washes both his hands and enters, for since he stayed away an hour or two he diverted his mind from his meal and was not careful to guard his hands, and they are busy (Rashi). And it appears that he does not need a blessing and also does not need 'Hamotzi', as written in siman 178 (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And when he stays away, he must always wash in a manner that they notice, for here they will certainly suspect him (ibid., subsection 5). And know that this which was explained, that he requires washing for drinking, this is specifically during the meal, for there is a concern that perhaps he will also eat; but for drinking without a meal—he does not require washing, meaning that the laws of netilat yadayim do not apply there, and if his hands are not clean he washes them however it may be and without a blessing.

It is stated in Berakhot (47a): "Two wait for one another at the bowl, three do not wait; the one who breaks the bread is the one who stretches out his hand first, etc." And seemingly it appears that this is the explanation: that the one should not begin to eat from the bowl before the second, and who stretches out the hand first – the one who breaks the bread, and immediately the second shall stretch out. But if the second is not yet ready, the first also shall not begin. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, explained this in another way, namely that if in the middle of the meal one stops eating from the bowl in order to drink or for another matter, his fellow must also stop eating from the bowl until he finishes the drinking or the other matter; but if they are three – the two do not stop for the one. And it appears that this is when they eat from one bowl, therefore because of derech eretz one must do so, but when each one eats from a bowl by himself, this law is not applicable. Nevertheless, also the explanation that we explained is certainly so according to the halacha.

It is stated in Eruvin (53b): "One does not leave over a corner in a stewpot, but one leaves over a corner in a bowl." Rashi explained: "When the server pours from the stewpot into the bowl, it is not the practice to leave anything in the stewpot for his sake, but each person leaves over a corner in the bowl and returns it to the server, and this is the food of the server." Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 3 wrote similarly. And even though one must give to the server also at the beginning of the meal, as was written in the previous siman, yet then one gives him a small amount. Furthermore, this is not the case with all foods as was written there, whereas here they leave over a significant amount for him, and this is the case with every type of food. And even if he does not serve during the meal but only cooks the food, and even if his sustenance is not upon him, one must leave over for his sake (Magen Avraham, subsection 8).

And know that in Tractate Derech Eretz (Chapter 6) it is taught: "One leaves pe'ah from a dish prepared in an ilpas, but one does not leave pe'ah from a dish prepared in a kedirah," for with a dish prepared in an ilpas one appears like a glutton if he does not leave over, but not with a dish prepared in a kedirah. And the Tosafot in Eruvin there cited the opposite: one leaves over in a dish prepared in a kedirah and not in a dish prepared in an ilpas, for with a dish prepared in a kedirah one appears like a glutton and not with a dish prepared in an ilpas, see there. And there it appears that this is not for the sake of leaving over for the server, but rather such is the manner of derech eretz. And now the custom is that the guest leaves over a little, but the master of the house in his home does not leave over, and perhaps this is also the intent of the Baraita, and so it is implied in the Gemara and in Tractate Derech Eretz which cited this regarding one who comes to an inn, see there. And perhaps because of this the custom spread that the guest leaves over when he does not pay for his meal.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 7: "One does not look at the face of the one eating nor at his portion, so as not to embarrass him." Thus far his words. I have not found this in any place, but by logic it is certainly so. This refers to a guest who eats for free, for when they look at him or at his portion, it appears to him that they are looking at him regarding what he eats. It was taught in Derech Eretz Zuta (chapter 4): "Torah scholars are pleasant in a group and the ignorant are not pleasant in a group," meaning that Torah scholars sit with derech eretz and speak with derech eretz, and not so the ignorant, meaning coarse people who do not possess derech eretz. And there in chapter 5 it was taught: "One who is a Torah scholar shall not eat standing and shall not lick his fingers... a person should always know next to whom he sits, and next to whom he stands, and next to whom he reclines, and with whom he converses... Torah scholars are recognized by their purse, by their cup, by their anger, and by their cloak, and some say even by speech." See there.

We have learned in Tractate Derech Eretz, chapter 6: "One who enters a house, whatever the host decrees upon him, he shall do." And in Pesachim at the end of chapter 7 we say: "Whatever the host says to you—do, except for 'leave,'" for if he tells him to leave the lodging, he does not need to leave, as we say in Arachin (16b) that one does not change lodgings; see there. And a person should not be fastidious during his meal, meaning that he should not become annoyed and should not become angry, because it is difficult for the members of his household and likewise the guests to eat then, as they fear perhaps he is becoming annoyed over their eating (see Taz).

We say at the end of the seventh chapter of Pesachim: "One who drinks his cup in one draught, behold he is a glutton; two is the way of the world; three, behold he is of the arrogant," and therefore one should be careful not to drink the cup in one draught; however, if the cup is small, he may drink it in one draught (ibid.). And there is no fixed measure for this, but rather everything is according to the drink and according to the person (see Magen Avraham, subsection 13), and likewise a very large cup or a very sharp drink like strong whiskey, he may drink even in four or five times. And so we say in Bechorot (44b): "One does not drink water in front of many," and so it is in Tractate Derech Eretz Zuta, chapter 6: "If he comes to drink in public, he turns his face to another side and drinks," see there. And it is not becoming for a woman to drink beverages, except for a small amount if she is accustomed to it (Ketubot 65a; and see Magen Avraham, subsection 7).

We have learned there at the end of chapter 6: "And one should not drink two cups and recite Birkat HaMazon, because he appears like a glutton," and the wording of the Tur is as follows: "And one should not bring two cups during his meal and recite Birkat HaMazon, because he appears like a glutton." And the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 11 is like the wording of the Baraita, except that he added "at one time," see there. And the matter is not understood, for if the intention is that he should not drink two consecutive cups one after the other, if so, how does Birkat HaMazon relate to this? And all that has been said regarding this is insufficient, and it requires further study. And know that it is a matter of derech eretz to refuse slightly when they ask him to eat or to drink, and only to a great person does one not refuse and shall act immediately.

It is stated in Beitzah (25b): A person should not eat garlic or onion from its head, but rather from its leaves, and if he ate [it so], he is a glutton. And a person should not eat in a gluttonous manner, which means he should not eat a piece as large as an egg. And even if he does not eat it all at once, but rather holds a large piece in his hand and bites, he is a glutton, except on Shabbat during the blessing of 'Hamotzi'. And likewise, he should not bite a piece and place it on the table while it is bitten, for it is a repulsive thing. And so we have learned in Tractate Derech Eretz Zuta (Chapter 6): A person should not recline before one who is greater than him, meaning that if he eats with a great person, he should not sit in a reclining position. If he comes to break the loaf, he breaks it in the place of the baking, meaning in the hard place, and if he comes to eat the radish or onion, he eats from the place of the leaves. And he should not take the loaf and tear it with his teeth and return it to the table, see there.

It is a simple matter that one should not do anything at the table that others find repulsive, such as spitting forcefully from either the mouth or the nose, nor should he pick his teeth, for he opens his mouth and another cannot bear to see this. Similarly, expelling air from the throat, which is known as "greptzen," it is well known that people find this repulsive. Likewise, it is forbidden to do any repulsive thing in the presence of one's fellow even not at the time of eating, as it is stated in Chagigah (5a): "'For God shall bring every hidden thing into judgment' (Ecclesiastes 12:14), this refers to one who spits in the presence of his fellow and he is repulsed by it." And in Eruvin (99a) it is stated: "One who coughs up phlegm or spits in the presence of his teacher is liable for death."

We have learned in chapter 7 of Tractate Derech Eretz: "Two who were sitting at one table, the greater among them extends his hand first and afterward the lesser, and if the lesser extended his hand, he is a glutton," and even if each one eats from the bowl before him or from types of fruits that each one has before him (Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 17). And in chapter 8 we learned: One who enters a house should not say to them: 'Give me and I will eat' until they say to him eat, and if they set before him to eat he does not need them to say to him that he should eat. And the proof is from Eliezer who said: "I will not eat until etc.", and they had not yet told him to eat, but since it is written: "And there was set before him to eat" there is no longer a need for speech (Magen Avraham subsection 18). And it appears that this is regarding one who eats for free, but in an inn when he pays money he may say: 'Give me to eat', and so is the simple custom. We further learned there: "If they poured the cup for him, he waits and drinks etc." see there (see Taz subsection 6 and it appears that the blessing of 'Hamotzi' is different).

We further learned there: "A person may not say to his fellow: 'Come and eat what you fed me,' for this is the way of ribbit." That is to say, it is like paying him back a debt and it appears as if he lent it to him, and perhaps he will feed him more, and there is a concern of ribbit in this. However, he is permitted to say: "Come and eat with me and I will eat with you another time," and it is permitted to eat with him afterwards even in a larger meal, since the intention is not for repayment but rather in the way of friendship.

At the end of Horayot we learned that there are foods that are detrimental to memory, and it lists there the heart of a domestic animal, a wild beast, and a bird, and olives; and they wrote that one who eats olives with intention increases memory (Magen Avraham subsection 19). And they wrote that the Arizal used to eat wild herbs that are not sown by man, to fulfill: "And you shall eat the herb of the field" which was said to Adam the first man after the sin (and see Pesachim 118a).

We further learned in Masechet Derech Eretz (chapter 9): A person should not break a piece of bread over the bowl, but a person may wipe a bowl with a piece of bread; for he should not break it lest a piece fall from the bread into the bowl and it becomes loathsome, but at the end of the meal he may wipe the bowl with the piece of bread. And a person should not gather crumbs and place them upon the table, because he disturbs (disgusts) the mind of his fellow. And he should not bite a piece of bread and give it before his fellow or into the bowl, because the minds of people are not identical, meaning that there are those for whom such a thing is loathsome. And he should not drink from the cup and give it to his fellow because of danger to life, meaning that there are natures that cannot drink from the leftovers of their fellow, and perhaps because of shame he will take and drink and come to a state of danger; but when he takes it of his own accord and drinks, we have no concern regarding it. And in the testament of Rabbi Eliezer the Great, he warns very much not to drink, because there are people who have an illness, and the breath enters into the cup and there is danger to the one who drinks (Taz, subsection 8). And he should not drink a cup and place it upon the table, for perhaps there is someone for whom this is loathsome; rather, he should hold it in his hand until the attendant comes and he gives it to him. And now we are not careful in this, because at most tables it is impossible to wait for the attendant, and our way is not such, and we have not seen anyone who is particular about this.

We further learned there: One who enters a meal should not take his portion and give it to the attendant, lest some mishap occur at the meal; rather, he should take it and place it before himself, and afterward give it to him. And this is the explanation: For behold, the guest may give from his portion to the attendant, but perhaps there will not be enough for the host to give to all the guests because some item in the meal will be spoiled, and therefore he should not rush to give until all the portions have been distributed, and afterward he may give if he wishes (Levush and Taz subsection 9; and the reasoning of the Magen Avraham subsection 22 is forced, see there). And guests who enter the home of a host are not permitted to take from before them and give to the son or the servant of the host, unless they have taken permission from the host. And this is not a contradiction to the previous law, for regarding the attendant who serves at the meal, one does not need to take permission from the host (Perisha). And we say in Sanhedrin (23a): "The pure-minded of Jerusalem would not recline at a meal unless they knew who was reclining with them," because it is a disgrace for a talmid chakham to sit next to an am ha'aretz at a meal.

It was taught in a baraita at the beginning of the seventh chapter of Berakhot: A shammash who was serving two people may eat with them even though they did not give him permission, for it is certainly pleasing to them so that he may join for zimmun. If he was serving three, he may not eat with them unless they gave him permission. And it appears to me that only regarding a shammash can he join two even without their permission, since even without this they are required to give him as has been explained; but for a person to come from the marketplace to eat without their knowledge is certainly forbidden, for who is to say that it is pleasing to them to give to a stranger from their food for the sake of the mitzvah of zimmun. And when they are eating something to which zimmun does not apply, even the shammash may not eat without permission (Taz, subsection 10), and it is simple.

After you have drunk from the cup and there remains in the cup for your fellow's drinking and he wishes to drink it, if it is wine, you should wipe the place of the mouth's contact with the cup because of repulsiveness, and you should not pour out a bit of wine because of "bal tashchit," unless his fellow does not wish to drink otherwise. However, after drinking water, pour some of it out from that spot, and such is the custom to pour out a bit. And after all your eating, eat salt, and after all your drinking, drink water; and this is when there was no salt in the bread or in the foods that he ate, and likewise he did not drink a beverage that contains water, but otherwise there is no concern. And so they are accustomed not to be careful regarding the eating of salt and the drinking of water for this reason.